6 Reasons Obama Is Untrustworthy on Guns

[The_Jackal]

Researching this issue, there is nothing wrong with what Obama is proposing with his new executive action. It doesn't end the right to own a gun, just makes background checks a little stricter.

honestly, as far as the background checks issue... it doesn't change anything. there's a legitimate reason why "in the business" is a little fuzzy.

-and how guns are being bought at higher rates then almost ever before, we should know the kind of people buying these weapons.

crime rate going down, murders going down, ever more guns bought... at the very least, it seems that purchasing isn't increasing the crime.

At many gun shows, there were ZERO background checks done. The executive order I think has changed that, for most gun shows at least. Not sure why that is a bad thing, as there are people out there who traffic guns who also happen to be up to no good. And it's a great thing crime has been going down, and I absolutely support gun rights but with more background checks at gun shows, where all kinds of shady people may show up, we can know who some or many of these people are.

Because it implies that every citizen who makes a private sell automatically is required to spend time/money/effort doing a background check that most would past anyway. A few states already require it and speaking from expiernce it's asinine as fuck

As you said, a few states require it already and if the process doesn't take too long, it shouldn't be a big problem. I'm against 6 month laws or rules, like in NY but some states are very loose with their gun laws. Just a little more criteria being used to get red flags on even a few more people can save a few lives and save a few body parts too.

States already requiring it doesn't make it right at all in anyway. I don't get how this argument comes down to life's being saved. Do you hace any data whatsoever that guns purchased at gun shows are brought by criminals who wouldn't pass a background check. Are is this one of those common sense things smh

 

[kingblaze84]

Researching this issue, there is nothing wrong with what Obama is proposing with his new executive action. It doesn't end the right to own a gun, just makes background checks a little stricter.

honestly, as far as the background checks issue... it doesn't change anything. there's a legitimate reason why "in the business" is a little fuzzy.

-and how guns are being bought at higher rates then almost ever before, we should know the kind of people buying these weapons.

crime rate going down, murders going down, ever more guns bought... at the very least, it seems that purchasing isn't increasing the crime.

At many gun shows, there were ZERO background checks done. The executive order I think has changed that, for most gun shows at least. Not sure why that is a bad thing, as there are people out there who traffic guns who also happen to be up to no good. And it's a great thing crime has been going down, and I absolutely support gun rights but with more background checks at gun shows, where all kinds of shady people may show up, we can know who some or many of these people are.

Because it implies that every citizen who makes a private sell automatically is required to spend time/money/effort doing a background check that most would past anyway. A few states already require it and speaking from expiernce it's asinine as fuck

As you said, a few states require it already and if the process doesn't take too long, it shouldn't be a big problem. I'm against 6 month laws or rules, like in NY but some states are very loose with their gun laws. Just a little more criteria being used to get red flags on even a few more people can save a few lives and save a few body parts too.

States already requiring it doesn't make it right at all in anyway. I don't get how this argument comes down to life's being saved. Do you hace any data whatsoever that guns purchased at gun shows are brought by criminals who wouldn't pass a background check. Are is this one of those common sense things smh

That's not completely true. And what's so bad about these parts of the new executive order.....
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/4/10708324/obama-gun-control-executive-order

The FBI will hire more than 230 more people to help run background checks — an increase of more than 50 percent to the current staff. Lynch said this was in part needed to keep up with rising demand. "We're looking to improve the efficiency and response time of the system," she said.

The government will also require background checks for people who try to buy restricted firearms through a legal entity, such as a corporation or trust. People were able to avoid background checks in the past through these entities.

 

[janklow]

So if the new background checks point out some new criteria, isn't it possible it can do some good or put connections on some of the negative groups or people that are out there?

no. because there are NO new background checks. this executive order is an advisory as far as that goes: it doesn't require new ones, doesn't install new ones, and doesn't really change how the previous ones were conducted.

-assuming they haven't violated restraining orders or been convicted of a non-justified violent crime. As you know, some states have less criteria then others and that can miss certain things.

however, if we're talking about reporting issues, which can be a thing, then this executive order doesn't really do anything there either.

in fact, one of the arguments that usually comes up is "we should fix the process rather than expanding it before it's fixed," and typically the anti-gun side isn't too interested in that until they can claim an issue with the process somehow means we need more of it.

That's not completely true. And what's so bad about these parts of the new executive order.....

The FBI will hire more than 230 more people to help run background checks — an increase of more than 50 percent to the current staff. Lynch said this was in part needed to keep up with rising demand. "We're looking to improve the efficiency and response time of the system," she said.

actually, i don't mind this part.

The government will also require background checks for people who try to buy restricted firearms through a legal entity, such as a corporation or trust. People were able to avoid background checks in the past through these entities.

my problem with this is that we're once again claiming the existence of some vast loophole when that's likely not the case, because explaining how trusts are commonly used is more complicated to understand.

literally in the middle of this right now as i just wrapped up a trust to facilitate owning NFA items with shared access and this change will definitely be more annoying for me (although not so bad as for some folks who have trusts with trustees in wildly dispersed locations). obviously the guys pushing the change (this change actually was NOT based on that executive order) don't really care how it affects me or others, but i do again have an objection to a policy change that's sold based on a vague, disingenuous claim.

 

[kingblaze84]

So if the new background checks point out some new criteria, isn't it possible it can do some good or put connections on some of the negative groups or people that are out there?

no. because there are NO new background checks. this executive order is an advisory as far as that goes: it doesn't require new ones, doesn't install new ones, and doesn't really change how the previous ones were conducted.

-assuming they haven't violated restraining orders or been convicted of a non-justified violent crime. As you know, some states have less criteria then others and that can miss certain things.

however, if we're talking about reporting issues, which can be a thing, then this executive order doesn't really do anything there either.

in fact, one of the arguments that usually comes up is "we should fix the process rather than expanding it before it's fixed," and typically the anti-gun side isn't too interested in that until they can claim an issue with the process somehow means we need more of it.

That's not completely true. And what's so bad about these parts of the new executive order.....

The FBI will hire more than 230 more people to help run background checks — an increase of more than 50 percent to the current staff. Lynch said this was in part needed to keep up with rising demand. "We're looking to improve the efficiency and response time of the system," she said.

actually, i don't mind this part.

The government will also require background checks for people who try to buy restricted firearms through a legal entity, such as a corporation or trust. People were able to avoid background checks in the past through these entities.

my problem with this is that we're once again claiming the existence of some vast loophole when that's likely not the case, because explaining how trusts are commonly used is more complicated to understand.

literally in the middle of this right now as i just wrapped up a trust to facilitate owning NFA items with shared access and this change will definitely be more annoying for me (although not so bad as for some folks who have trusts with trustees in wildly dispersed locations). obviously the guys pushing the change (this change actually was NOT based on that executive order) don't really care how it affects me or others, but i do again have an objection to a policy change that's sold based on a vague, disingenuous claim.

I guess the new executive order isn't perfect but it seems to be more of a minor inconvenience to some then a terrible order. You admit hiring more staff to do these background checks is good, it might even speed up the background checks for some.

In the end, not much changed one way or the other. A president that was really anti-gun could have done much worse.

 

[janklow]

I guess the new executive order isn't perfect but it seems to be more of a minor inconvenience to some then a terrible order. You admit hiring more staff to do these background checks is good, it might even speed up the background checks for some.

i don't care if they staff up some of these agencies, that's true. what i dislike is the disinformation campaign that Obama seems to be invested in running alongside this stuff. see how you thought he was addressing some loopholes and instituting background checks?